Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2017; 34(10): 0974-0981
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1601441
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA

Influence of Patient-Level Factors on Mode of Delivery among Operative Vaginal Delivery Candidates in Modern Practice

Torri D. Metz
1   University of Colorado, School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado
,
Christina Gonzalez
1   University of Colorado, School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
,
Amanda A. Allshouse
3   Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health at the University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado
,
Erick Henry
4   Institute for Healthcare Delivery Research, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Sean Esplin
5   Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

04 January 2017

01 March 2017

Publication Date:
04 April 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective We aimed to evaluate which patient-level factors influence mode of delivery among candidates for operative vaginal delivery.

Study Design Cross-sectional study of candidates for operative vaginal delivery from 18 hospitals over 8 years. Probabilities of mode of delivery were estimated using hierarchical logistic modeling adjusting for clustering within physician and hospital.

Results Total 3,771 (64%) women delivered with forceps, 1,474 (25%) vacuums, and 665 (11%) cesareans. Odds of forceps versus vacuum were higher with induction (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.76–2.65), nulliparity (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.59–2.66), epidural (OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.19–3.56), maternal indication (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.16–2.02), older maternal age (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06–1.31 per 5 years), and longer second stage (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01–1.20 per hour).

Odds of cesarean versus operative vaginal delivery were higher with maternal indication (OR = 9.0, 95% CI: 7.23–11.20), a perinatologist (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.09–5.78), longer second stage (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.65–1.93 per hour), older gestational age (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01–1.20 per week), and longer labor (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01–1.04 per hour).

Conclusion Patient-level factors influence the decision to proceed with an operative vaginal delivery and the choice of instrument, thereby emphasizing the importance of maintaining availability of both forceps and vacuums.

Keywords

clinical characteristics - forceps - indication - operative delivery - vacuum

Note

Abstract presented as a poster presentation at the 62nd American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, April 26–30, 2014.


 

  • References

  • 1 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2011. National Vital Statistics Reports, vol 62, no. 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (05) 1181-1193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin number 17: Operative Vaginal Delivery. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Institute of Medicine. Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Reexamining the Guidelines. Resource Sheet. May 2009. www.iom.edu . Accessed October 23, 2011
    PubMed
  • 5 Metz TD, Stoddard GJ, Henry E, Jackson M, Holmgren C, Esplin S. Simple, validated vaginal birth after cesarean delivery prediction model for use at the time of admission. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (03) 571-578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Metz TD, Stoddard GJ, Henry E, Jackson M, Holmgren C, Esplin S. How do good candidates for trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) who undergo elective repeat cesarean differ from those who choose TOLAC?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208 (06) 458.e1-458.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 O'Mahony F, Hofmeyr GJ, Menon V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (11) CD005455 . Doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005455.pub2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vayssière C, Beucher G, Dupuis O. , et al; French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. Instrumental delivery: clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 159 (01) 43-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Beucher G. [Maternal morbidity after operative vaginal delivery]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2008; 37 (Suppl. 08) S244-S259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Friedman AM, Ananth CV, Prendergast E, D'Alton ME, Wright JD. Evaluation of third-degree and fourth-degree laceration rates as quality indicators. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125 (04) 927-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bahl R, Murphy DJ, Strachan B. Decision-making in operative vaginal delivery: when to intervene, where to deliver and which instrument to use? Qualitative analysis of expert clinical practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 170 (02) 333-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar